> the governed unless the governed have no issues that that lead to speach/action
What about if the speech is censored, shadow-banned, limited etc in some other ways? Where the governed does not know their speech was limited in reach, censored etc? (which btw is a real approach social media companies are taking today).
You’re getting at the distinction between the right to speak and the right to be heard.
There are tons of time-and-place limitations that make perfect sense. I can’t interrupt a city council meeting to give a speech about, well, anything not on the agenda.
And of course social media companies have no legal obligation to allow free speech at all, which is their own right to speech.
Core freedom of speech means the government cannot arrest you for what you say. Going beyond that to private companies being obligated to ensure your reach can be a moral argument but not a legal one.
Theyll see no effect of their speech, and try something else. Like voting, protests, and violence. In thay order
... or infighting, or self-destruction, or doomscrolling... the pressure will go somewhere but not necessarily into channels that relieve it. That takes more effort and persistence, and also a society (our consumer societies hardly rate as such in my books).
the right to free speech has nothing to do with what social media companies do. Social media companies are not compelled by anything, in law or otherwise, to amplify your particular post.
Is there any historical precedent for a defacto public square?
We can't relegate (unwillingly even) every bit of our lives to the private sector and suddenly say rights shouldn't exist.
If we want a digital public square we should fund one with public tax dollars.